Rev. James Dobson, the politically influential, conservative evangelical leader of nonprofit group Focus on the Family, has given a green light to some video games while offering warnings about violent an sexual content as well as possible game addiction in regard to others.

Dobson's comments appeared in his newspaper column in response to a question from a parent about their son's video gaming:

Depending on the particular games in question, you may have a valid cause for concern... two University of Michigan researchers concluded in 2007 that violent media, including television, film and video games, pose a significant public health threat...

Furthermore, some video games add unhealthy sexual themes and profanity to the mix, not to mention that the American Medical Association estimates one in 10 video gamers is addicted.

Of course, not all video games are problematic. Certain sports games, for instance, can be loads of fun. Some can even be educational...

I’d advise you to put clear limits on the amount of time your son will be allowed to spend with video games... Insist he avoid the troublesome ones altogether...

Fairly level-headed column. He refers to flawed studies, but the stories that discredit these studies never get the same amount of play as the original studies.

And seriously, all you guys flying off the handle, you did not read the fucking article, I can tell that so easily. This is a column in response to a dad who was wondering about his young son's video gaming habits. Fuck people, its called reading comprehension!

There were actually several people who said that Dobson using the word 'son' was sexist. FUCK YOU. READ THE ARTICLE. Jesus fucking christ.

I cannot even comprehend how stupid some of you guys are. Are you so eager to RAGE AGAINST THE MAN that you're too cool to read? If this rant applies to you, you should know that you are not helping the 'video game cause' in any way by being a moron. Thank you.

As far a religion and the Bible of the Christians, Old testament of the Judasim (I don't know the book that Jewish people read from, but you get the idea), the Koran of the Muslims and everything from Hindu and Buddah to even the Native Americans, Aztecs, Africans, Oceania Aboriginals and everything around the world I believe that we ourselves should forgive others who have caused us harm.

That is what Jesus did in the end.

We should also have to understand that some people will never change their ways, so we should not expect them to change when we have already changed and forgiven them.

Horrible things do happen in real life, but that is the reason why I believe we do have violent content and sexual content in our Videogames and other media. It is just like the Bible and other holy books because they are trying to talk about serious issues in society in more of a story telling way.

Of course there are things that are fact in the stories and many things that are fiction to make it a good story to read, but that is the same with everything else from TV to Videogames.

To be honest, I can relate allot to the Violent and Sexual content in Videogames as I could think about how they reflect how horrible humanity is and understand it from a better angle.

I know I can't change anything, but I can still chose to do something in my life to make myself better.

While I was happy that he did not take the "All entertainment Videogames are bad" approach, it still has me sad at the fact that he did not really talk about the ESRB and what each of the ratings mean.

Like, E rated games are suitable for everyone no matter what age. (EC games are for Early Childhood that are mostly found on P.C. Computer and are educational games for pre-schoolers.)

E10+ rated games are recommended to be suitable for everyone above the age of 10.

T rated games are recommended to be suitable for everyone in their teenage years and above.

M17+ rated games are recommended to be suitable for everyone above the age of 17. They are what is considered to be mature adults even though they may be 17.

AO18+ rated games are recommended to be suitable for everyone above the age of 18 and they are for Adults Only.

It should also be note that Videogame retailers in America are not confident to sell AO18+ rated games, therefore the hardware developers and many publishers chose not to publish a game that is rated AO18+ and therefore if such as rating would be given to a game, the publisher can chose to order the developer to change the offending content, then resubmit it into the ESRB for a re-classification and it would be more likely the content of the game would be toned down to an M17+ rating. This is NORMAL for game Developers to do this, because they have worked so hard on a game and for the game not being marketable will be a huge financial cost to the company.

Until there is an agreement for the AO18+ rating for videogames to be marketable, this situation will not change, the only way an AO18+ game can ever be marketable is via Online because even though people want their children to be protected against some adult orientated games, Adults need to have the choice to play Videogames they want to play too without any moral backlash from their community groups.

So what do you think? Do you think I might have done a better job at describing the ESRB ratings?

Plus the ESRB is there to HELP parents so THEY can decide what games their younger children should or should not play BEFORE they make that purchase.

Parents find it hard to do anything after the purchase of the game in question other than implementing the Parental Controls on Videogame Consoles. Then there is the kids throwing a complete tantrum and many parents I know don't want to get involved if it comes to a videogame, so therefore that is why the ESRB is there for a reason, it gives parents some advice so they can chose. Also it allows Adults to play the games they want to play (other than the AO rating).

Depending on the particular games in question, you may have a valid cause for concern... two University of Michigan researchers concluded in 2007 that violent media, including television, film and video games, pose a significant public health threat...

Well, at least he did mention something else beside video game. I don't agree with him 100%, but only people that don't get their ass off the couch and go social, then we have a problem.

Furthermore, some video games add unhealthy sexual themes and profanity to the mix, not to mention that the American Medical Association estimates one in 10 video gamers is addicted.

Well, I think parents are smart enough to know which game is suitable and which is not. For game addict, 10% is laughable. It's not a pandemic, so chill out on that.

Of course, not all video games are problematic. Certain sports games, for instance, can be loads of fun. Some can even be educational...

See video game are not all "work of the devil". Sport games, puzzle games, and a lot of other non-violent game are fun.

I’d advise you to put clear limits on the amount of time your son will be allowed to spend with video games... Insist he avoid the troublesome ones altogether...

To reiterate an earlier comment of mine, read the entire article. Relevant part here:

"In Phoenix, two surgeons at Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center found resident physicians’ surgical skills improved markedly after playing Wii’s motion- controlled games an hour before conducting a virtual surgery. Elsewhere, a longtime fan of the Xbox 360 title “America’s Army” saved lives at the site of a serious car wreck by employing the techniques he learned from the game’s virtual combat medic training."

I believe he just mentioned an FPS, in a positive light. Oh, wow, he may even know that it IS a combat game. GP should really put the rest of the article in there so some of these people stop running their mouths.

Religious extremists are notable because they contradict what their religion mandates.

People will always be violent retards, religions are not excempt from these people. They just get a pass because it's been so prevailant in our society and so their 'their cause is just'

Anyway the point I'm getting at is that religions don't support the murder of those who have different beliefs. And using people who do that is like saying all Black people bite everyones ears off because Mike Tyson did it.

While I agree that his response is more respectful than previous responses from others in his positions, I still object to the title. The title alone makes me feel uneasy because it sounds like he's playing God. Granted compared to other responses from church leaders this guy at least seem to be sane. But the title some games are ok, others are not. Why do people, esp church leaders think they're God that they can decide and label for EVER PERSON ON THE PLANET what is appropriate and what isn't. Everyone has a different opinion some are more common than others but in the end the debate anout what is offensive and what isn't is limited to everyone's personal opinion.

For those who are offedned by everything they see and hear....The most effective form of protest is: DON'T WATCH! DON'T LISTEN! And most importantly.....DON'T BUY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

"With free speech either all of it is ok or none of it is." Kyle Broflovski

While you have an interesting point, I don't think this guy is "Playing God" in any sense. If I were to suggest to my friend that he needs to, say, tie his shoe, or move over to another lane while driving, am I now "Playing God"? No, I'm just giving advice, which, just like this guy, can be ignored. Contrary to popular belief, people don't listen to preachers and leaders like this guy as much as people think they do.

If you really have a beef with this, take it up with the ESRB. They're the ones "Playing God"

2. They gave what would be a T rating in America an M rating in Australia. And the MA15+ is higher than an M rating. I would have just changed the M rating into a T rating for Teens and MA15+ to just M16+ to make sure there was no confusion in the sexual content with some MA15+ movies.

G for General and PG for Parental Guidance was more leading towards the American movie ratings. And they are more easier for parents to understand.

But when it comes to Videogames, I would perfer the ESRB because of the difference between a Teen rating and an M17+ rating considering that American Market can't have AO18+ rated games.

While he obviously still has some biased or slanted views on games this is a far more balanced opinion compared to what we've heard from similar groups before. The sheer fact that he admits that at least some games can be beneficial is a step in the right direction.

He opens with flawed studies that support his biased view, and calls every game that isn't a sports game or educational 'problematic', but because he made a throwaway remark right at the very end that parents should limit their SONS (why not 'childs', sexist much?) time on consoles he gets a free tongue-polishing for his ass from a lot of you? What the hell is wrong with you people?

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

What I realy think is the problem here is that we've gotton too used to assholes who slaughter games just for being games.

Finally someone comes a long with a less biased view, one that encourages parental involvement, and we attack him like he's JT. This is an argument I've heard from major games magazines (I still have the "Sympathy for the Devil" article from an old back issue of Game Informer). If this were coming from a major industry leader, we'd all be on his side.

Games have ratings because in the midst of the gaming nasties controversy in the early 90s brought about by games like Night Trap and Mortal Kombat, things reached a point where the U.S. government said 'Either you rate your games or we will'.

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

I'd prefer government censorship than this toadying self censorship that the industry provides. At least if we had government censorship we wouldn't have folks being able to argue that it's not censorship.

But on topic, what this Dobson guy is saying is actually pretty good. He's not so blinded as to ask for banning games in general, or even specific games. He tells parents to have their kids avoid troublesome games, which, actually, is reasonable, considering these troublesome games are almost certainly the ones rated M or higher. And once you're old enough to play a Rated M game by ESRB standards, you should be out of the house!

Really, though, whether you agree or disagree with this guy, he isn't really hurting anything, or even attempting to (JT, I'm looking at you), so there's no reason to act so hostile, people.

He opens with flawed studies that support his biased view, and calls every game that isn't a sports game or educational 'problematic', and makes a throwaway remark right at the very end that parents should limit their SONS (why not 'childs', sexist much?) time on consoles.

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

2. Many GP readers do it all the time. I can't be bothered to look, but what did you say on initial reports of EA's fake protest?

3.He said some games are problematic, instead of referring to the ones he likely was thinking of (GTA, manhunt, bully, etc),

4.Read the rest of the article before you turn into a raging, drooling, screaming critic.

"In Phoenix, two surgeons at Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center found resident physicians’ surgical skills improved markedly after playing Wii’s motion- controlled games an hour before conducting a virtual surgery. Elsewhere, a longtime fan of the Xbox 360 title “America’s Army” saved lives at the site of a serious car wreck by employing the techniques he learned from the game’s virtual combat medic training."

2. Agreed, but until people learn to stop being sheep, there's nothing we can really do about it.

3. He used Sports game as an example, and then said that some games could be educational, but in no way said that those games were the only kind.

4. Nobodies really doing this, and I would be against it if they did, but we shouldn't attack someone just because they say something that's a little negative, while also including positive statements. We're not PETA.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Other than being mislead by some flawed studies, I think this guy has the right idea. I just wish that the studies weren't conducted for the reasons they were (to get your name more known on a controversial subject most of the time), and that the findings weren't so greatly exaggerated.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Not like... oh, I don't know... THE BIBLE which has no perverted sexual content (like women having sex with their father or the same father offering those girls to a crowd for raping) or violence (like massive wars of genocide discussed in explicit detail down to woman being ripped open to make sure to kill their fetii). But because it doesn't have "shit" or "fuck" in it, it's okay.

Basically, whether the Bible is true or not, is a discussion for another time, and has little to do with this article. I understand how most people see it as hypocritical to begin with. While I, of course, disagree, that's for another day.

And while I know you guys aren't going to change your mind, I have to get it off my chest: you do realize how dispicable those incidents you mentioned are portrayed (and that last one's Shakespeare's Henry V, not the Bible). The Bible mentions these to show how horrible they are.

Firstly, every time somebody brings this crap up, it's always an example from the old testament. Well, guess what? To Christians, the Old Testament really means next to nothing by itself. Not to discount the fact that it has the 10 commandments, and a lot of good stories, but the foundation of the Bible lies in the New Testament, with Jesus and all of that. The Old Testament is supposed to be taken in context with the New. Yes, there are plenty of wicked, naughty things to be found in the bible, but, at the end of the day, a couple hundred pages later, Jesus forgives us all from the bleak, rather depressing acts found in the Old Testament.

Secondly, speaking of context, I find that these stories are being taken out of line, even by themselves. Some of you people are making it sounds as if the Bilble promotes this stuff, which is completely untrue.

Thirdly, Vake is right, that last example isn't even biblical, unless my mind is faltering. Seriously, if it's an honest mistake, I can forgive that, but I doubt it was.

Lastly, this is not an attack against non-Christians, or KaylaKaze, or anybody. I'm just saying, if you're going to try and bring up a religion debate at a completely random time, at least try to come up with a valid argument. If you're going to insult an entire group of people, at least do it right.

*sigh* Attacking something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand isn't a good practice. It isn't like he's holding the bible up and telling the parents that the child's time would be better spent reading it. He even complemented games in general, but warned the parents that it wasn't to good to let your child play overly violent games (the parents choice, but I agree that children of certain ages shouldn't be allowed to play certain games. Games aren't Trix). In fact other then quoting some flawed studies (that he probably didn't know were flawed to begin with) he's really done nothing to deserve our ire. We shouldn't just attack anyone that says something about games that can be taken negative, we're better then the church/goverment/psycho extremists, aren't we? I know it really gets to a person when their hobby is slandered by everyone looking to get their names in a newspaper, but let us not attack everyone with a different view.

On the note of the Bible, I think it's a great read. I also think that there is much truth in it, about as much as in the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and I also believe that there is just as much ficition between the two also.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

"the parents choice, but I agree that children of certain ages shouldn't be allowed to read certain chapters of the Bible." Added that for ya. You say the Bible is a great read, but don't try and justify how the violence/sexuality in that is any better/worse for kids than violent/sexual video games.

-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

Actually, some chapters of the Bible are often recommended to be omitted from study until one is a later age. For example, Song of Solomon, which can get pretty explicit as far as sex. I probably won't let my child read the Old Testament at all until he/she is 13. Same with "T" rated games. And forget about "M" until 16.

Shout box

Infophile: @Matt: Apparently Dan Aykroyd actually is involved. We don't know how yet, though, but he's apparently going to be in the movie in some way.08/02/2015 - 4:17am

Mattsworkname: I still hold that not having the origonal cast invovled in any way hurts this movie, and unless the 4 actresses in the lead roles can some how measure up to the comic timing of the origonal cast, i just don't see it being a success08/02/2015 - 12:46am

Mattsworkname: Mecha: regardless of what you think of it, GB 2 was a finanical success and for it time did well with audiances ,even if it wasnt as popular as the first08/02/2015 - 12:45am

MechaTama31: I think they're better off trying to do something different, than trying to be exactly the same and having every little difference held up as a shortcoming. Uncanny valley.08/01/2015 - 11:57pm

MechaTama31: Having the original cast didn't do much for... that pink-slimed atrocity which we must never speak of.08/01/2015 - 11:56pm

Mattsworkname: Andrew: If the new ghostbusters bombs, I cant help but feel it'll be cause it removed the origonal cast and changed the formula to much08/01/2015 - 8:31pm

Andrew Eisen: Not the best look but that appears to be a PKE meter hanging from McCarthy's belt.08/01/2015 - 7:34pm

Mattsworkname: You know what game is a lot of fun? rocket league. It' s a soccer game thats actually fun to play cause your A Freaking CAR!08/01/2015 - 7:02pm

Mattsworkname: Nomad colossus did a little video about it, showing the world and what can be explored in it's current form. It's worth a look, and he uses text for commentary as not to break the immerison08/01/2015 - 5:49pm

Mattsworkname: I feel some more mobility would have made it more interesting and I feel that a larger more diverse landscape with better graphiscs would help, but as a concept, it interests me08/01/2015 - 5:48pm

Andrew Eisen: Huh. I guess I'll have to check out a Let's Play to get a sense of the game.08/01/2015 - 5:47pm

Mattsworkname: It did, I found the idea of exploring a world at it's end, exploring the abandoned city of a disappeared alien race and the planets various knooks and crannies intriqued me.08/01/2015 - 5:46pm

Andrew Eisen: Did it appeal to you? If so, what did you find appealing?08/01/2015 - 5:43pm

Mattsworkname: Its an interesting concept, but it's not gonna appeal to everyone thats for sure,08/01/2015 - 5:40pm

Andrew Eisen: That sounds horrifically boring. Doesn't sound like an interesting use of its time dilation premise either. 08/01/2015 - 5:36pm

Mattsworkname: an observer , seeing this sorta frozen world and being able to explore without any restriction other then time. no enimes, no threats, just the chance to explore08/01/2015 - 5:34pm